Literati Breakthrough

[Flanders]

At long last those of us who examine conspiracy theories without believing them are getting some relief:

According to studies, those who subscribe to conspiracy theories are less “married” to their theories than those who accept conventional wisdom.

XXXXX​

Scientific American reported that those who are insecure about their own intellect are less likely to be able to accept information that doesn’t fit neatly into their worldview.

XXXXX​

Psychological experts call this cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger first proposed the concept in 1957. He said that there is a powerful motive to be consistent in one’s thoughts. This motive, he said, can be so compelling as to be disregarding of pertinent, even thought-altering information.

XXXXX​

Might this mean that the conspiracy theorists, held in such disdain by polite society, have an intellectual self-confidence and mental stability to deal with the possibility of being wrong?

Are conspiracy theorists really the sane ones?
University study shows they are more well-grounded than others
Published: 15 hours ago
GINA LOUDON

Are conspiracy theorists really the sane ones?

Much is made of people who espouse this or that conspiracy. I want to look at the reason people in power fear conspiracy theories far beyond cognitive dissonance. Let me start with this:

Just prior to his appointment as President Obama’s so-called regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein wrote a lengthy academic paper suggesting the government should “infiltrate” social network websites, chat rooms and message boards. Such “cognitive infiltration,” Sunstein argued, should be used to enforce a U.S. government ban on “conspiracy theorizing.”

Obama czar proposed government ‘infiltrate’ social network sites
Sunstein wants agents to 'undermine' talk in chat rooms, message boards
by Aaron Klein

Obama czar proposed government ?infiltrate? social network sites

Note that Sunstein calls freedom of speech cognitive infiltration.

Banning conspiracy theorizing on the Internet has nothing to with intellectual insecurity. Here’s why people like Sunstein are rewarded by those in power.

Conspiracy theories strike at the very foundation of belief. Most notably belief in a government, or belief in a specific organized religion. In practice, belief in a government or a religion means belief in the people running those institutions. The same is true of every institution except prisons. Nobody expects convicts to believe in the warden.

Back it up one step and you find that belief in the people running the institution replaces belief in God. If power corrupts absolutely it must follow that an individual’s belief in God is the greatest threat to the people who are corrupted by power. That’s why I’ve always said that every priesthood fears individuals who believe in God more than they fear atheists.

Throughout history ambitious liars counted on being believed. Conspiracy theories challenge the existing power structure. Yesteryear’s Spanish Inquisition used extreme measures to force belief on non-believers. Today, the personalty types who were tortured in the past can escape a turn on the rack by voicing their recalcitrance in the form of conspiracy theories —— at least they can escape for the time being. Banning conspiracy theorizing is the first step on the road back to the rack.

It can be said that demonizing targeted groups are the original conspiracy theories. Demonizing goes back centuries, while the phrase conspiracy theory only goes back to the late 19th century.

Who would dare say “Demonizing a specific group is a thing of the past.” Blacks demonize whites and vice versa. Muslims demonize Jews and Christians. I’ve yet to hear a public voice say “Demonizing and conspiracies are the same thing.”

Demonizing Jews is still popular all of these years after Nazi Germany went belly up. It wasn’t long after WWII ended that the literati had a collective epiphany. They discovered that scapegoating a group is a sure way to acquire and/or hold power in a democracy. Hitler was elected.

The literati’s intellectual breakthrough led to the word scapegoating becoming the acceptable substitute for demonizing. The word conspiracy got lost in the shuffle for good reason.

Politicians shudder at the thought of having their policies described as conspiracies, while they reserve the right to silence detractors à la Cass Sunstein’s recommendations. In that sense the word conspiracy is a two-edged sword.

Examine and subscribe are not synonyms

The topic of conspiracies has always intrigued me. Over the years I’ve posted many messages on the topic. Lest I be misinterpreted in this thread let me revisit to my personal view of conspiracy theories.

I happen to love juicy conspiracy theories without subscribing to them. I enjoy them immensely because I take them for what they are —— opinions wrapped in fanciful tales about damnable deeds. Without kook conspiracy theories the only thing explaining questionable historical events are “facts” recommended by inmates in one or another equally questionable institution.

It is normal for a person to decry conspiracy theories whenever one hits too close to home. Much to my astonishment a conspiracy theory takes on the noble quality of a just crusade whenever leading Socialists point their fingers shouting: “Reprobates at the highest levels have conspired.” Encouraged by the morality conferred upon them by the electorate they then accuse the scoundrels of conspiring to coverup the original conspiracy. My confusion always deepens whenever I ask myself the question best left unattended if one wishes to retain any faith in representative government: “How did reprobates get to the highest levels in the first place?”

The more I observe doings in the nation’s capital the more I realize that those lusting after power imply conspiracy with every word spoken, while those holding power assume the pose of gentle souls incapable of contracting nefarious deeds; preferring to clam up for fear a true word spoken in error will sully their majesty.

For those who are interested in the topic it is important to define the distinction between private citizens espousing a slippery theory decades after the event went down, as in the JFK assassination, the FDR-Pearl Harbor Theory etc., and elected officials inventing a transgression before the suspect intrigue had time to mature gracefully as in 9-11-2001 and so on.

There is a quixotic charm inherent in private citizens accusing a fragment of their government of having done terrible things in decades gone by, while a conspicuous, self-serving, crassness attaches itself to living, breathing, officeholders denouncing their own kind before the corpse has gone cold. The latter suggests cannibals feasting.

Having established my conspiracy theory creds, I will now attempt to turn the system on its head.

Every so often the people representing my views hold the power. The people who never represent my views now have most of the power.

After carefully considering the possibility that Philistines will condemn me as an active participant in a vast right-wing conspiracy, I accuse the people in power of acquiring said power by engaging in numerous conspiracies designed to hornswoggling voters in recent elections. Example: They conspired to pass universal healthcare without telling the public what they were really after, or what their objective entailed. And as in all good conspiracies a cover up follows the original crime. Everything Democrat conspirators are doing now is being done to cover up the original conspiracy.

I leave it to anybody reading this message to decide how much of my conspiracy theory contains a grain of truth?

 

[Flanders]

Whenever Americans speak out against the government they are called conspiracy theory nuts. Whenever the government conspires against the American people the media calls it policy. The Affordable Care Act was a conspiracy against the American people. Democrats shutting down the government to prevent defunding the ACA is also a conspiracy as their methods show.

Propaganda is primarily the tool of government conspirators as well as being a reasonable application of the word conspiracy. Basically, the government controls the machinery of propaganda; i.e., the media-education-entertainment complex.

Parenthetically, whenever Communist revolutionaries fight to overthrow their national government their primary military objective is never the armory, it is always TV and radio transmitters.

Number 2. in the following definitions blurs the line between institutional propaganda and political activity by non-government groups.

Note the upper case P in number 3.

propaganda (noun)

1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those people advocating such a doctrine or cause.

2. Material disseminated by the advocates of a doctrine or cause: the selected truths, exaggerations, and lies of wartime propaganda.

3. Propaganda. Roman Catholic Church. A division of the Roman Curia that has authority in the matter of preaching the gospel, of establishing the Church in non-Christian countries, and of administering Church missions in territories where there is no properly organized hierarchy.

Paul Kengor’s great piece looks at propaganda in relation to the government shutdown:

Obama’s exploitation of the government shutdown (never let a good crisis go to waste) is a classic old method mastered by the likes of CPUSA. It’s standard operating procedure. What you’re witnessing is Barack Obama’s “shutdown campaign” — and with the liberal media dutifully on his side to amplify the effort.

Here today, in our new America, our own federal government has gotten into the propaganda business full throttle. Its exploitation of the shutdown is shameless.

XXXXX​

. . . the performance has reached a higher, uglier decibel level under the Obama administration. This is hardly a surprise, given Barack Obama’s upbringing, mentors, radical associates, and the crucial fact that he was a community organizer who studied and taught Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

XXXXX​

As has been reported, and is unmistakably evident to all but the most naïve, federal employees have been ordered to exploit this crisis, to make the government shutdown as uncomfortable as they can. The White House is actively soliciting complaints from the general public on “how the government shutdown has affected you.” These testimonies are tools sought for the propaganda kit; the better to agitate with.

XXXXX​

But for the churner of propaganda, the agitprop artist, the spectacle of elderly, crying, dying, heart-aching, wheelchair-bound WWII vets travelling hundreds to thousands of miles to honor their fallen brothers, perhaps for a final earthly time, only to be denied by cruel, intransigent Republicans, is just too delicious to pass up.

XXXXX​

And then the propaganda coup de grâce, the topper: a compliant media on hand to film the charade and spin it in your direction. Utterly delicious. A lovely opportunity. You can picture the propaganda maker salivating at the spectacle.

Of course, the World War II Memorial is just one of numerous examples of Obama’s shutdown campaign bearing its (intended) bitter fruit. What other welcomed pain might be generated? What other lambs might leftists conjure up for the sacrifice?


Obama’s Shutdown Campaign
By Paul Kengor on 10.7.13 @ 6:08AM
Echoing an old Communist Party tactic.

The American Spectator : Obama?s Shutdown Campaign

 

[SAYIT]

At long last those of us who examine conspiracy theories without believing them are getting some relief:

Relief from what? Most of us examine CTs and walk away not believing them. Are you feeling somehow persecuted by those who do?

 

[Flanders]

Relief from what?

To SAYIT: Message board libs.

No matter the topic, or the forum, I cannot count the times Lefties on this board said the thread belonged in the Conspiracy Theories forum. I’m sure they complained to the moderator although I can’t prove it. I have to wonder what they are saying about a thread about conspiracies that was posted in the Conspiracy Theories forum. The overload will probably give them nervous breakdowns.

Bottom line: Everything libs object to is a conspiracy theory à la Cass Sunstein. Let’s hope they learned this:

From the OP

Scientific American reported that those who are insecure about their own intellect are less likely to be able to accept information that doesn’t fit neatly into their worldview.